DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[Bedlamite]

CONVERSION OF SIDNEY RIGDON

If Rigdon aided Joseph Smith in writing the Book of Mormon and his conversion to Mormonism was a sham, it was

aided by a rather fortuitous event--the conversion of Parley P. Pratt....

Now, it seems to me that Spalding advocates, in addition to asserting that Rigdon pretended his conversion,
would by necessity also have to include Parley P. Pratt in their conspiracy theory. And thus we add yet another
layer of improbability.

I'm not sure there is any more "layer of improbability" here, than there is with the fact that some early Mormon
leaders close to Joseph Smith were able to keep secret the exact time and circumstances when they first were taught polygamy
as a secret Priesthood doctrine. Yes, some of those people later gave retrospective accounts of their being officially
taught "the principle," but not until they had been released from their promises of silence in the 1850s. Had the LDS
Church been able to keep polygamy a secret for another decade, then no doubt another ten years would have
passed before those same early Mormons would have divulged all of their secrets.

The same may be the case for Pratt -- that is, he may have been sworn to secrecy for certain activities he engaged
in on behalf of his religion. Besides which, he could also have been a dupe to some extent. What I hear you saying,
is that by the time Pratt's autobiography came out (after his death, when nobody could ask for details) he would have
been totally honest regarding all secretive actions he had taken in the past ---- or, that if he were not being totally
honest, he would have been suffering some sort of inexplicible mental block, of not realizing from later events that he
had indeed been duped.

From my experience with the RLDS, I know that certain church members can keep secrets, or even tell lies, when they
truly feel such unethical acts will ultimately help the institution. I thus do not think we can expect all Latter Day Saint
family histories and autobiographies to be fully honest, even in cases where continued dishonesty is illogical and should
serve to awaken the deceiver to the fact that he/she might also have been deceived by church leaders.

I believe that Pratt had met Rigdon before early 1829 -- that Pratt had become a "Rigdonite" (his term) by the time he
became on ostensible "Reformed Baptist." For a likely embellished and purposefully obscured account from Pratt's own
hand, regarding his conversion to pre-Mormon Rigdonism, see his "Angel of the Prairies" story here:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1880PrtA.htm

See also Theodore Schroeder's interpretation of a possible historical reality within the fictionalized story, here:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1901schr.htm#pg26b

I think that it is important for us to recall that Sidney Rigdon had theologically broken away from his fellow Reformed
Baptist ministers (like Campbell, Scott and Bentley) in 1829 and that the rift had become permanent and unrepairable
by 1830. That is why Pratt and others called their group "Rigdonites" rather than "Campbellites." The Rigdonism of
1830 was a pentecostal variety of Reformed Baptist religion which professed latter day miracles, visitations of divine
messengers, visions, revelations, etc.

Lyman Wight's preserved journal extract says in 1829 he accepted the "Rigdonite doctrine;" while a Dec. 1830
newspaper reported: that Parley P. Pratt "has been a resident of the township of Russia, Lorain co., Ohio, for three
or four years last past, until August last, when he was authorized to preach by the sect called Rigdonites."

In his 1838 pamphlet, Pratt says:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg40c

"About A. D. 1827, Messrs. A. Campbell, W. Scott, and S. Rigdon, with some others, residing in Virginia, Ohio, &c.,
came off from the Baptists, and established a new order, under the name of reformed Baptist, or disciples, And they
were termed by their enemies, Campbellites, Rigdonites, &c.... Mr. Rigdon in particular held to a literal fulfilment
and application of the written word... an understanding of the prophesies, touching the great restoration of Israel..." (Benjamin Winchester, who had lived with Pratt at Kirtland uses these words of description also).

Rigdonism was the religion to which Pratt his loyality in 1830 -- not to its more austere and logical Campebllite roots.
Pratt says in his autobiography: "I then unfolded to him the gospel and prophecies as they had been opened
to me, and told him that the spirit of these things had wrought so powerfully on my mind of late that I could not rest;
that I could no longer be contented to dwell in quiet and retirement on my farm, while I had light to impart to mankind."

The question must here be asked, who was Pratt's religious superior during the late summer of 1830? I do not think we
can say it was Alexander Campbell nor some pastor of the Grand River Baptist Association. By this time the member
congregations of that organization that had embraced Arminianism and primitive church restorationism had been
excommunicated. Pratt's closest coreligionists were the Reformed Baptists of Mentor and Kirtland, who were supported
by the (then) disintegrating Mahoning Association. In other words, Pratt's religious superior was Sidney Rigdon.

Pratt next says that he set about making "preparations for a mission which should only end with my life." While he uses
a very generalized description for his intended activities, he was at that time preparing to go on a proselyting mission
as a Rigdonite elder. There can be no other logical explanation of his activities.

Then Pratt says "In August, 1830, I had closed my business... launched forth into the wide world, determining first to
visit our native place, on our mission." Although he includes his wife in his hyperbolic description, her role on the
"mission" was merely that of a wife-supporter, the "mission" was that of Parley P. Pratt, not his wife's preaching tour.

In short order Pratt leaves his wife and begins his mission within walking distance of the Cowdery family home on the
Arcadia-Lyons segment of the Erie Canal. Before he can preach a single sermon or baptize a single new Rigdonite, he
encounters the Book of Mormon and becames an almost instant convert.

Here is how Pratt himself retrospectively described the scenerio, in 1838:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm

"I became acquainted with Mr. Rigdon, and a believer in, and a teacher of the same doctrine.
After proclaiming those principles in my own neighborhood and the adjoining country, I
at length took a journey to the State of New-York, partly on a visit to Columbia, Co., N. Y.,
my native place: and partly for the purpose of ministering the word. This journey was
undertaken in August, 1830. I had no sooner reached Ontario Co. N. Y., than I came in
contact with the "Book of Mormon..."

Sidney Rigdon was even more specific in his 1843 account:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/Rigd1843.htm#p289 ---

"elder Parley Pratt had been a preacher in the same church with elder Rigdon, and resided
in the town of Amherst, Lorain county, in that state, and had been sent into the State of
New York, on a mission, where he became acquainted with the circumstances of the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon..."

Why is Rigdon more specific about Pratt being SENT on a Rigdonite mission, than is Pratt himself?
Was it not because Rigdon had sworn Pratt to secrecy about the details of that mission, but that
Pratt had not the power to make Rigdon keep the secret? Who sent Pratt on his mission? It certainly
was not Alexander Campbell -- who had no use for latter day visions and American restorations
of Israel (as did the break-away Reformed Baptists, Rigdon and Pratt).

Under what logic might we discount the probability that this Rigdonite elder was sent exactly where he suddenly got off
the boat, by a prophetic prediction implanted in his mind by the visionary Sidney Rigdon? If Pratt's thinking and religious
credulity had been shaped by the "Angel of the Prairies" to be looking for something like the Gold Bible (which had
already been advertised in Ohio newspapers and was known to his fellow Rigdonites like Eliza Snow and Orson Hyde)
then he certainly would have fallen under its spell, like clockwork.

But my suspicions are that Pratt is not totally forthcoming in his autobiography. By the time it was published in 1874,
Rigdon was on his deathbed and Pratt himself was 17 years in the grave. How can we trust such an account as being
100% truthful? Read Rigdon's own 1844 spring conference talk at Nauvoo, to see the importance of church SECRECY
during the very period that Pratt became a Mormon. We simply cannot expect him to be fully open about all of his
motives and preconditioning in 1830.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/1844Conf.htm

It should also be recalled that Sidney Rigdon's 1844 excommunication at Nauvoo was based largely upon reports
of his secret plotting and manipulations with Mormons then under his influence. In his church court trial and in
contemporary reports written by J. M. Grant and Orson Hyde, numerous accusations are made in regard to Rigdon's
deceitfulness, lying in the name of the Lord, secret religious plotting, etc. Since some of this testimony was given
by his own Ohio congregation members, and since their cited instances stretched back almost to the period of
Rigdon's Mormon conversion, we have there good examples of believers close to Rigdon who had witnessed his
secretive bad behavior for many years, but had kept their mouths shut, for one reason or another.

To all of this should be added the special observation, that Parley P. Pratt served for a few years as sort of the Mormon
guardian against the Spalding authorship claims. He not only responded to Howe and Hurlbut in the 1838 pamphlet
already quoted from above, but he also scripted the first Mormon reply to Spalding's widow a few months later, where
he takes some pains to speak in the place of Sidney Rigdon (then preocupied establishing Nauvoo) as though he knew
Rigdon's every argument on the subject, saying: "The sect was founded in the state of New York while Mr. Rigdon
resided in Ohio, several hundred miles distant. Mr. Rigdon embraced the doctrine through my instrumentality. I first
presented the Book of Mormon to him." Pratt continued in this defender role, being the chief Apostle overseeing the
New England area Mormon missionary efforts, when he no doubt sent Elder Jesse Haven to interview Spalding's widow,
under the plausible "cover" of being an interested Christian. Again, not long after that, Pratt was present at the
Philadelphia conference where the Spalding claims seems to have come up -- at least Rigdon was there and Joseph Smith reportedly
went from there to Washington, D. C. and issued curses against advocates of the claims. From there Pratt went to
England and published the first Mormon tract addressing the Spalding claims -- and was met at that time there by his
Philadelphia conference host, Benjamin Winchester, who, in turn, went back to America and published the first Mormon
anti-Spalding tract in the USA. Pratt was clearly an anti-Spalding partisan entrusted with considerable power to act on
his own, in behalf of the Church, in combatting the problem.

Pratt knew more than he was telling and cannot be relied upon. Since he took it upon himself to offer up such a stern
defense of Rigdon, I can only conclude that when Rigdon was converted to Mormonism, that he and Pratt had planned
the meeting and its outcome in advance, and that when any of us say that Rigdon knew of the Book of Mormon before
1830, we must also admit that Pratt knew he knew -- and that Pratt very likely knew also.

Lastly, I doubt very much that Pratt was the only person Rigdon could have sent to New York -- though he was perhaps
the best choice. Other Reformed Baptists fell under Rigdon's visionary influence and converts like Orson Hyde, Lyman
Wight, Father Morley, F. G. William, Edward Partridge, Oliver Snow etc. might have "done in a pinch." Darwin Atwater,
another of Rigdon's parishoners criticized Rigdon's religious hobbies and later reported: "In all my intercourse with
him afterward he never spoke of antiquities, or of the wonderful book that should give account of them, till the book
of Mormon really was published. He must have thought I was not the man to reveal that to. "

If Pratt was the best choice, I cannot prove that point -- I can only speculate. Perhaps Pratt (a fair writer on his own)
was somehow involved in the final composition of the Book of Mormon, though his rather ate appearance on the scene
appears to argue against that. Perhaps as a reported tin-wares peddler in western New York he was acquainted with
Oliver Cowdery, a reported pamphlet peddler. At any rate the two men had the energy and stamina to walk most
of the way to Indian Territory, from Palmyra, loaded down with peddler's packs full of Gold Bibles. I see Pratt as a
low-level member of the Gold Bible Company -- who probably never knew the secrets of the book's origin, but really
did not care, so long as he was able to carve out a position of authority for himself in the new organization.
Or so it seems to me.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

CONVERSION OF SIDNEY RIGDON

17-21 October 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer depart Manchester
(NY) in "late" October 1830.

Circa Early November 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer arrive in the Mentor (OH) area.

... Thence [from Buffalo] we continued our journey, for about two hundred miles, and at length called on Mr. [Sidney] Rigdon, my former friend and instructor, in the Reformed Baptist Society. He received us cordially and entertained us with hospitality. We soon presented him with a Book of Mormon, and related to him the history of the same. He was much interested, and promised a thorough perusal of the book.

We tarried in this region form some time, and devoted out time to the ministry, and visiting from house to house.

At length Mr. Rigdon and many other became convinced that they had no authority to minister in the ordinances of God; and that they had not been legally baptized and ordained. They, therefore, came forward and were baptized by us, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. ... (47-48)

Circa 8 November 1830. Sidney Rigdon is baptized in Mentor (OH).

In a letter dated 12 November 1830, Kirtland, Ohio, Oliver Cowdery states:

... seventeen went immediately forward and were baptized, between eleven and twelve at night, and on the 6th there was one more, on the 7th nine in the day time and at night nineteen, on the 8th three, on the 9th three, on the 10th at night one, on the 11th one, on this day another, making in the whole fifty five, among whom are brother Sidney Rigdon and wife.

--(Newel Knight, Journal, circa 1846, private possession).

I think that some additional entries should be made in the chronology presented here.

First of all, do we know of any earlier travels of Parley P. Pratt to the Lyons-Arcadia-Palmyra area? Just because
Pratt himself does not specify such previous travels does not mean that he had none. So, I leave open a few slots
before the summer of 1830, where we one day might confirm chronologically that Pratt was indeed a tinwares peddler,
who had contacts up and down the Erie Canal in western New York.

The next missing entry for the chronology would be the date when Pratt and Cowdery made their decision to take
a "long-cut" on their assigned travels to Indian Country, west of the Missouri, and to pass through Mentor, Ohio.
Certainly there is no indication that they departed the Mormons of western New York with the express intention of
passing though the Lake Erie south shore country. So, at what point did the four missionaries make the decision to
route their journey through Mentor, and for what purpose? I suggest that it was a decision made before they ever
departed on their mission, and that they may have agreed to have a shipment of Gold Bibles sent to Fairport (just
north of Painesville), so that they could refresh their supply, to make up for any they had sold upon the way.

At any rate, I believe that the four missionaries walked from Buffalo, along the Lake Erie shore, to Fairport or to
Painesville, but that they did not make too great a show of their presence along the way, until they were in Painesville.
That would account for the lack of newspaper notices of their passage westward, I think. But at Painesville that quiet
passage westward became much more publicized, with the following mention in the newspaper there:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#110030
"About a couple of weeks since, three men... appeared in our village, laden with a new revelation, which they claim
to be a codicil to the New Testament. They preached in the evening in the Methodist Chapel, and from certain
indications, conceiving they might do more good otherwheres, departed for Kirtland, where is a "common stock
family," under the charge of Elder Rigdon, a Campbellite leader of some notoriety....Immediately after their arrival
here, Elder Rigdon embraced the new doctrine and was baptised... We are told that the [whole] number baptised
into the new order, is rising to one hundred."

I estimate that Cowdery and Pratt preached Mormonism in Painesville on Wed. Oct. 27th, and that while they were
thus engaged in proselytizing, their other two companions (Peter Whitmer & Ziba Peterson) were making preparations
to go to Kirtland. If Cowdery and Pratt departed Painesville on the early evening of the 27th, they could have arrived
in Mentor before the Rigdon family retired for the night. Whitmer and Peterson, walking a longer distance, but starting
earlier, may have arrived at the Morley farm in Kirtland in time for dinner. Richard S. Van Wagnor also concludes
that Whitmer and Peterson separated from the group and went to Kirtland (though this doesn't preclude a short stop
for Whitmer and Peterson at Rigdon's along their way to the Morley "family").

But as I said, we need to flesh out the chronology a little, so let's backtrack from October 28th and estimate this:

c. late Oct. 1830 The four missionaries to the Lamanites pass through Ashtabula Co., Ohio, the first county in
that state after the Pennsylvania line, and the county immediately eastward from what was then Geauga Co., Ohio,
where Fairport, Painesville, Mentor and Kirtland and Chardon were located.

Also this, should be added:

Oct. 16, 1830 (Sat.) Rigdon was either in Ashtabula, Ohio, or sent a message there, saying that he would
"preach at the Town House" in Ashtabula township, on Friday the 22nd.

Oct. 22, 1830 (Fri.) Sidney Rigdon evidently preached in Ashtabula township, in the Town House.If Rigdon did
preach there, and then stayed for the night, he probably returned to the Painesville-Mentor area on the 23rd or 24th
(in time for Sunday services), he may well have traveled the same road, going in the same direction, as the four
Mormon missionaries, then on their way across Ashtabula County, heading for Mentor. This is most a intriguing
coincidence, and it is made even more intriguing by the fact that no similar preaching notices for Sidney Rigdon's
religious meetings are known to have been published in any other newspaper. Could the publication of the notice
have been a pre-arranged "signal" by which Rigdon was able to alert one or more of the traveling four missionaries
as to his exact whereabouts, a week before they were scheduled to arrive in the Mentor area. Was Rigdon able to
thus secretly meet with one or more of the four missionaries, and thus give instructions for the group to soon afterward
break into two sets of two preachers, one directed to his house in Mentor and the other to his church in Kirtland?

The possibility of Rigdon's having met secretly with one or more of the traveling missionaries may be given some
slender support by the recollection of Esak Rosa's son, in 1894, that "Rigdon whom he [Esak Rosa] had seen at Mentor
and Painesville, [was also] preaching Mormonism in Rochester, N. Y. This he stated was several months before
Mormons preached in Ohio. He said Rigdon used to meet Joseph in Ashtabula." Esak was editor of Howe's 1834 book.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IA ... #061891B-f

c. Oct. 24, 1830 (Sun.) Sidney Rigdon was likely in Mentor for Sunday meeting of his congregation. If Rigdon
alternated each Sunday, between his flocks in Mentor and Kirtland, his next scheduled appearance in Kirtland must
have been Sunday, Oct. 31st -- (note by the 31st, 17 of Rigdon's Kirtland followers were already Mormons).

c. Oct. 25-27, 1830 (Mon-Tues.) Pratt, Cowdery, Whitmer and Peterson arrive in Painesville and secure the
Methodist chapel there for a preaching service (probably conducted on the 27th before nightfall).

Oct. 27, 1830 (Wed.) Pratt, Cowdery, Whitmer and Peterson arrive in Mentor. According to one of Rigdon's
Mentor congregation (and the son of Rigdon's landlord, who lived next door) "The whole matter of Rigdon's conversion
to Mormonism was so secret, so sudden and so perfectly unexpected, that it was to us like a clap of thunder out of a
clear sky. The four Mormons came to Mr. Rigdon's Wednesday evening (I think). Then Thursday morning he came to
my father's with the wonderous announcement."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#051679

Oct. 27, 1830 (Wed.) Pratt, Cowdery spend the night with Rigdon -- probably Whitmer and Peterson went on
to Kirtland. Sophia Munson later recalled: "I was quilting at his house until 1 o'clock at night the day the four
Mormons came to convert Rigdon. I heard some of their conversation in the adjoining room."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-4b1

Oct. 28, 1830 (Thr.) Pratt and Cowdery remain with Rigdon, while Whitmer and Peterson are already in Kirtland
and are probably at the Morley farm. Lyman Wight would have been their chief "contact" there. Wight had a couple of
years before lived within walking distance of Dr. Warren Cowdery, in Allegany Co., NY, when Warren was the only
doctor in the area. If Wight did not know Oliver, he surely knew Warren, and thus was meeting friends of friends.

Oct. 29-30, 1830 (Fri.-Sat.) Whitmer and Peterson proselytize among Rigdon's congregation in Kirtland and are
joined there by Oliver Cowdery (while Pratt evidently stayed with Rigdon in Mentor). Cowdery baptises 17 of the
Rigdonites into the new Mormon dispensation.

Oct. 31, 1830 (Sun.) Rigdon arrives in Kirtland for his Sunday preaching engagement, and there finds some
flock already baptized Mormons.

Nov. 6-11 An additional 38 Rigdonites are baptized as Mormons, including Rigdon and his wife.

This was indeed a speedy doubling of the size of the Church of Christ, founded only 7 months before. I can only
conclude that despite his public show of unhappiness over the proselytizing, that Rigdon had pre-approved the
conversion and baptism of his communal "family" in Kirtland, before Peterson and Whitmer ever arrived there to
preach the Mormon gospel. And, like members of the Clapp family and other "Reformed Baptists" stated, Rigdon's
own conversion to Mormonism occurred with lightning speed -- and was a fact well before his Nov. 8th baptism.

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

I once tried to engage Sandra Tanner is a conversation regarding Rigdon's Mormon conversion at
the beginning of November, 1830. She sold me a couple of books, chatted about other topics, but would
not say anything about Rigdon, other than "I'm sure he was a sincere convert."

I wanted to ask her whether she thought that he retained that same honest, Christian sincerity throughout
the rest of his life, or whether he was "fibbing" in professions like his joint vision with Smith of the three
degrees of glory, etc. But, like I said, it was a topic that she felt no interest in discussing.

So -- I am curious to hear what people think of Rigdon's Mormon conversion. I'll list four possibilities, and perhaps
folks can do a little bit of reading on the subject and voice their opinions, as to whether any of them are likely.


a. Rigdon was an intellectual convert -- he heard the Mormon gospel and accepted its doctrines

b. Rigdon was an emotional convert -- he read the Book of Mormon and felt a "burning in his bosom," etc.

c. Rigdon was an opportunistic convert -- he may not have agreed with all of Mormonism, but "knew a good thing."

d. Rigdon was a convert before he ever read the Book of Mormon -- Mormonism was the same as Rigdonism.


There are several different sources on Rigdon's conversion -- but you do not have to read all of them to form
at least a general opinion of why he became a Mormon and remained one through many trials and tribulations.

I have my own ideas (pulled together from a number of historical sources) -- but I'd like to hear other ideas as well.

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

a. Rigdon was an intellectual convert -- he heard the Mormon gospel and accepted its doctrines

b. Rigdon was an emotional convert -- he read the Book of Mormon and felt a "burning in his bosom," etc.

c. Rigdon was an opportunistic convert -- he may not have agreed with all of Mormonism, but "knew a good thing."

d. Rigdon was a convert before he ever read the Book of Mormon -- Mormonism was the same as Rigdonism.

# 4 but in order to respond in greater detail I'd need time, a day at least. In essence I don't think Rigdon was a religious follower, having been thrown out of a Baptist group for having different ideas. He was opinionated and not particularly open to persuasion. His eagerness to join so quickly bascially within a day, having only read the Book of Mormon in the evening and without having spent much time in evaluation leads one to question why would he act so fast. What was his primary motivation, what were his rewards? He already had a congregation, actually I believe 2 so why give them up to another authority unless he was offered a position within the new sect. And why would he be offered a position by them so soon as they had only just presented the Book of Mormon to him. So with the speed of events being so quick, it appears it was all planned out well in advance.

[_marg]

Shades: See-saw Smith/Rigdon power struggle. You mentioned that the Book of Mormon contains an overwhelming amount of correspondences to Smith's life and times. This means that, if the Spalding/Rigdon Theory is true, Smith inserted his own interpolations and perhaps story arcs into the Book. Now, chances are good that Smith would only do such a thing because he couldn't stand playing second fiddle to anyone else ("Why does Sidney think he's such a grand scriptorian? Watch me make this book even better!") Is there any evidence that Smith didn't like playing second fiddle? Yes, as evidenced by the near-constant power struggle, especially in the early years, between Smith and Rigdon.

With this concession, the Spaulding theory becomes the unnecessary hypothesis. The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith wrote the entire book. If Joseph Smith has the ability to rewrite Spaulding and make the story his own, then obviously the Spaulding theory is no longer needed to explain how the ignorant farm boy came up with the Book of Mormon.

Dan,

How do you jump to a conclusion that the Spalding theory become unnecessary given what Shades said? It is a lot easier to make changes here and there to a finished fictional work, than it is to create such an entire piece of work from nothing but imagination.

You say.."the simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith wrote the entire book". Sure that is the simplest explanation as long as you dismiss all the Spalding witnesses who by the way were not anti Mormon, they had no particular interest in Mormonism one way or another. Even Spalding’s wife didn’t guard her husband’s work from being taken by Hurlbut. So the evidence is not that they conspired against Mormons. I believe all the witnesses stated that what Hurlbut gave Howe was not the manuscript they were aware of contained in the Book of Mormon. If you find any of the Spalding witnesses not credible, what's your reasoning?

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

So, in response to Parley P. Pratt's accounts of how he learned about the Book of Mormon, you accuse him of lying and/or being Rigdon's dupe? On what evidence? All you offer us is little more than unsupported assertion that begs the question because it assumes Pratt knew the "truth".

The same may be the case for Pratt -- that is, he may have been sworn to secrecy for certain activities he engaged in on behalf of his religion.

Apparently, the only reason you suggest Pratt lied about the circumstances of Rigdon's conversion to Mormonism as well as his own is because your thesis demands it. Arguing that early Mormon leaders kept polygamy secret and therefore kept Spalding secret as well is not evidence. It's wishful thinking. You must give us reason for believing Pratt lied in this specific case. If you can't impeach Pratt's testimony, your theory that Rigdon was involved with Smith before December 1830 is in trouble.

Besides which, he could also have been a dupe to some extent. What I hear you saying, is that by the time Pratt's autobiography came out (after his death, when nobody could ask for details) he would have been totally honest regarding all secretive actions he had taken in the past ---- or, that if he were not beimg totally honest, he would have been suffering some sort of inexplicible mental block, of not realizing from later events that he had indeed been duped.

You can give us no reason to doubt Pratt's account of his motivations and movements in 1830. Your assertion that he was Rigdon's dupe, later discovered he was used to aid in Rigdon's fake conversion, and then kept the secret because he was placed under an oath is quite far fetched and highly improbable. When Pratt left, he sold his farm and had no plans of returning. Even if Rigdon thought it was inevitable that Pratt discover the Book of Mormon, how confident could he be that Pratt would accept it, be baptized, and want to return to the Mentor area on the way to Missouri? Why didn't Joseph Smith just get a revelation directing the missionaries to pass through Mentor? Or, better, direct Cowdery to pretend to convert Rigdon since, according to your theory, Cowdery was already part of the conspiracy?

From my experience with the RLDS, I know that certain church members can keep secrets, or even tell lies, when they truly feel such unethical acts will ultimately help the institution. I thus do not think we can expect all Latter Day Saint family histories and autobiographies to be fully honest, even in cases where continued dishonesty is illogical and should serve to awaken the deceiver to the fact that he/she might also have been deceived by church leaders.

Who can doubt that pious fraud in general exists, but you are attempting to go from the general to the particular without any real evidence for doing so. You can't just accuse Pratt of dishonesty because you need to maintain your pet theory. You must build a compelling case showing Pratt did lie. Otherwise, his testimony stands as strong evidence against your theory.

I believe that Pratt had met Rigdon before early 1829 -- that Pratt had become a "Rigdonite" (his term) by the time he became on ostensible "Reformed Baptist." For a likely embellished and purposefully obscured account from Pratt's own hand, regarding his conversion to pre-Mormon Rigdonism, see his "Angel of the Prairies" story here:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1880PrtA.htm

See also Theodore Schroeder's interpretation of a possible historical reality within the fictionalized story, here:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1901schr.htm#pg26b

It would be helpful if you told us what to look for in this book of Pratt's that you think helps your argument here. It is quite unnecessary to refer to vague references in this source, since Pratt is open about his association with Rigdonism. In his autobiography, Pratt said he was "astonished" by Rigdon's doctrine, but believed it was incomplete because none of the Rigdonites actually manifested spiritual gifts.

At length I went to hear him [Rigdon] ... Here was the ancient gospel in due form. ... But still one great link was wanting to complete the chain of the ancient order of things; and that was, the authority to minister in holy things--the apostleship, the power which should accompany the form. This thought occurred to me as soon as I heard Mr. Rigdon make proclamation of the gospel. ...

After hearing Mr. Rigdon several times, I came out, with a number of others, and embraced the truths which he taught. We were organized into a society, and frequently met for public worship.

--Parley P. Pratt, The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, ed. Parley P. Pratt, Jr. (New York: Russell Brothers, 1874; 1976 reprint), 31-32.

So, the Rigdonites differed from Campbellites on the matter of spiritual gifts being restored--Campbell believed the gifts as well as the apostleship were confined to the first century and were no longer necessary. In essence, the Rigdonites were Seekers--much like Joseph Smith's uncle Jason Mack and father--who awaited the restoration of the apostleship through either a Pentecostal event or angelic ministration. by the way, in my book Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism, I traced the history of Seekerism and suggested that Mormonism began by fulfilling Pentecostal Seeker expectations, but shifted to claims of angelic ordination.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/seekers/Introduction.htm

I think that it is important for us to recall that Sidney Rigdon had theologically broken away from his fellow Reformed Baptist ministers (like Campbell, Scott and Bentley) in 1829 and that the rift had become permanent and unrepairable by 1830. That is why Pratt and others called their group "Rigdonites" rather than "Campbellites." The Rigdonism of 1830 was a pentecostal variety of Reformed Baptist religion which professed latter day miracles, visitations of divine messengers, visions, revelations, etc.

See above.

Lyman Wight's preserved journal extract says in 1829 he accepted the "Rigdonite doctrine;" while a Dec. 1830 newspaper reported: that Parley P. Pratt "has been a resident of the township of Russia, Lorain co., Ohio, for three or four years last past, until August last, when he was authorized to preach by the sect called Rigdonites."

Which was openly acknowledged by Pratt.

In his 1838 pamphlet, Pratt says:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg40c

"About A. D. 1827, Messrs. A. Campbell, W. Scott, and S. Rigdon, with some others, residing in Virginia, Ohio, &c., came off from the Baptists, and established a new order, under the name of reformed Baptist, or disciples, And they were termed by their enemies, Campbellites, Rigdonites, &c.... Mr. Rigdon in particular held to a literal fulfilment and application of the written word... an understanding of the prophesies, touching the great restoration of Israel..." (Benjamin Winchester, who had lived with Pratt at Kirtland uses these words of description also).

All of which primed them for Joseph Smith's claims, as also many others throughout the world. however, the more likely target of Joseph Smith's fulfillment of Seeker expectations was his father. It was fortunate that Joseph Smith found this pocket of Seekers in northern Ohio.

Rigdonism was the religion to which Pratt his loyality in 1830 ...

The question must here be asked, who was Pratt's religious superior during the late summer of 1830? ... In other words, Pratt's religious superior was Sidney Rigdon.

Pratt next says that he set about making "preparations for a mission which should only end with my life." While he uses a very generalized description for his intended activities, he was at that time preparing to go on a proselyting mission as a Rigdonite elder. There can be no other logical explanation of his activities.

This may very well be true, although Pratt emphasized his being called by the spirit to sell all he had and start on a mission.

Here is how Pratt himself retrospectively described the scenerio, in 1838:
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm

"I became acquainted with Mr. Rigdon, and a believer in, and a teacher of the same doctrine.
After proclaiming those principles in my own neighborhood and the adjoining country, I at length took a journey to the State of New-York, partly on a visit to Columbia, Co., N. Y.,
my native place: and partly for the purpose of ministering the word. This journey was
undertaken in August, 1830. I had no sooner reached Ontario Co. N. Y., than I came in
contact with the "Book of Mormon..."

Sidney Rigdon was even more specific in his 1843 account:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/Rigd1843.htm#p289 ---

"elder Parley Pratt had been a preacher in the same church with elder Rigdon, and resided
in the town of Amherst, Lorain county, in that state, and had been sent into the State of
New York, on a mission, where he became acquainted with the circumstances of the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon..."

Why is Rigdon more specific about Pratt being SENT on a Rigdonite mission, than is Pratt himself? Was it not because Rigdon had sworn Pratt to secrecy about the details of that mission, but that Pratt had not the power to make Rigdon keep the secret? Who sent Pratt on his mission? It certainly was not Alexander Campbell -- who had no use for latter day visions and American restorations of Israel (as did the break-away Reformed Baptists, Rigdon and Pratt).

If what you say is true, why would Rigdon divulge the secret himself? It seems a little wild to speculate as you do on so little evidence. It's a huge leap that I can't take with you. However, the above quote saying Pratt "was sent" is not from Rigdon, but rather from Joseph Smith's History of the Church (1:121) firs printed in Times and Seasons 4:289. So, I'm not sure of the authority of the "was sent" and prefer Pratt's version, that is, that he was called by the spirit and was heading for Canaan to visit family and friends, when promted by the spirit to visit a small town near Rochester, NY.

Under what logic might we discount the probability that this Rigdonite elder was sent exactly where he suddenly got off the boat, by a prophetic prediction implanted in his mind by the visionary Sidney Rigdon? If Pratt's thinking and religious credulity had been shaped by the "Angel of the Prairies" to be looking for something like the Gold Bible (which had already been advertised in Ohio newspapers and was known to his fellow Rigdonites like Eliza Snow and Orson Hyde) then he certainly would have fallen under its spell, like clockwork.

If what you are saying is true, why wouldn't Rigdon "implant" in Pratt's mind to go to Manchester or Fayette? Why would Rigdon want Pratt to go to a little town near Rochester to learn about the Book of Mormon from an unbeliever? Pratt wasn't looking for the Gold Bible, he was looking to preach. The Book of Mormon was a total surprise.

Whatever newspaper accounts or rumors Pratt and others in the Western Reserve may have been exposed to could not have connected Joseph Smith's translation of an Indian history with restorationism. Not until after publication in March 1830 could its contents be known to the public and reported in newspapers. Hyde and Snow said the reports were "vague" and dismissed by them as a "hoax".

But my suspicions are that Pratt is not totally forthcoming in his autobiography. By the time it was published in 1874, Rigdon was on his deathbed and Pratt himself was 17 years in the grave. How can we trust such an account as being 100% truthful? Read Rigdon's own 1844 spring conference talk at Nauvoo, to see the importance of church SECRECY during the very period that Pratt became a Mormon. We simply cannot expect him to be fully open about all of his
motives and preconditioning in 1830.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/1844Conf.htm

The secrets Rigdon mentions deal with future plans, particularly those dealing with the New Jerusalem government in Missouri, league with the Indians, and possible overthrow of the US government. To suggest the church leaders could have kept Spalding secret is the same as demonstrating they DID keep Spalding secret. It's up to you to impeach Pratt. So far, you haven't. Pratt's story makes sense to me, your version doesn't.

It should also be recalled that Sidney Rigdon's 1844 excommunication at Nauvoo was based largely upon reports of his secret plotting and manipulations with Mormons then under his influence. In his church court trial and in contemporary reports written by J. M. Grant and Orson Hyde, numerous accusations are made in regard to Rigdon's deceitfulness, lying in the name of the Lord, secret religious plotting, etc. Since some of this testimony was given by his own Ohio congregation members, and since their cited instances stretched back almost to the period of Rigdon's Mormon conversion, we have there good examples of believers close to Rigdon who had witnessed his secretive bad behavior for many years, but had kept their mouths shut, for one reason or another.

Is there anything specific in these charges that bear on the issue at hand? We have several instances where these church courts drum up charges against an individual in order to maintain the status quo.

To all of this should be added the special observation, that Parley P. Pratt served for a few years as sort of the Mormon guardian against the Spalding authorship claims. He not only responded to Howe and Hurlbut in the 1838 pamphlet already quoted from above, but he also scripted the first Mormon reply to Spalding's widow a few months later, where he takes some pains to speak in the place of Sidney Rigdon (then preocupied establishing Nauvoo) as though he knew Rigdon's every argument on the subject, saying: "The sect was founded in the state of New York while Mr. Rigdon
resided in Ohio, several hundred miles distant. Mr. Rigdon embraced the doctrine through my instrumentality. I first presented the Book of Mormon to him." Pratt continued in this defender role, being the chief Apostle overseeing the New England area Mormon missionary efforts, when he no doubt sent Elder Jesse Haven to interview Spalding's widow, under the plausible "cover" of being an interested Christian. Again, not long after that, Pratt was present at the Philadelphia conference where the Spalding claims seems to have come up -- at least Rigdon was there and Joseph Smith reportedly went from there to Washington, D. C. and issued curses against advocates of the claims. From there Pratt went to England and published the first Mormon tract addressing the Spalding claims -- and was met at that time there by his Philadelphia conference host, Benjamin Winchester, who, in turn, went back to America and published the first Mormon anti-Spalding tract in the USA. Pratt was clearly an anti-Spalding partisan entrusted with considerable power to act on his own, in behalf of the Church, in combatting the problem.

I see nothing suspicious in Pratt's countering Spalding any more than the dozen other subjects he wrote on--after all he was the leading pamphleteer in the early church. Given his knowledge of how Rigdon came to be converted, why shouldn't Pratt take a special interest in the issue? Can you give us a reason to doubt Pratt's account of his presenting the Book of Mormon to Rigdon?

Pratt knew more than he was telling and cannot be relied upon. Since he took it upon himself to offer up such a stern defense of Rigdon, I can only conclude that when Rigdon was converted to Mormonism, that he and Pratt had planned the meeting and its outcome in advance, and that when any of us say that Rigdon knew of the Book of Mormon before 1830, we must also admit that Pratt knew he knew -- and that Pratt very likely knew also.

They may have heard rumors or read a newspaper report about some plates being translated, but such vague reports would probably only take on significance after their conversions.

Lastly, I doubt very much that Pratt was the only person Rigdon could have sent to New York -- though he was perhaps the best choice. Other Reformed Baptists fell under Rigdon's visionary influence and converts like Orson Hyde, Lyman Wight, Father Morley, F. G. William, Edward Partridge, Oliver Snow etc. might have "done in a pinch." Darwin Atwater, another of Rigdon's parishoners criticized Rigdon's religious hobbies and later reported: "In all my intercourse with him afterward he never spoke of antiquities, or of the wonderful book that should give account of them, till the Book of Mormon really was published. He must have thought I was not the man to reveal that to. "

Funny how Atwater and Pratt say the same thing, but you only believe Atwater.

If Pratt was the best choice, I cannot prove that point -- I can only speculate. Perhaps Pratt (a fair writer on his own) was somehow involved in the final composition of the Book of Mormon -- though his later appearance on the scene appears to argue against that. Perhaps as a reported tin-wares peddler in western New York he was acquainted with Oliver Cowdery, a reported pamphlet peddler. At any rate the two men had the energy and stamina to walk most of the way to Indian Territory, from Palmyra, loaded down with peddler's packs full of Gold Bibles. I see Pratt as a low-level member of the Gold Bible Company -- who probably never knew the secrets of the book's origin, but really did not care, so long as he was able to carve out a position of authority for himself in the new organization. Or so it seems to me.

If Pratt's late arrival argues against his participation in the plot, then why not use the same argument against Rigdon's?

[_Dan Vogel]

Shades: See-saw Smith/Rigdon power struggle. You mentioned that the Book of Mormon contains an overwhelming amount of correspondences to Smith's life and times. This means that, if the Spalding/Rigdon Theory is true, Smith inserted his own interpolations and perhaps story arcs into the Book. Now, chances are good that Smith would only do such a thing because he couldn't stand playing second fiddle to anyone else ("Why does Sidney think he's such a grand scriptorian? Watch me make this book even better!") Is there any evidence that Smith didn't like playing second fiddle? Yes, as evidenced by the near-constant power struggle, especially in the early years, between Smith and Rigdon.

With this concession, the Spaulding theory becomes the unnecessary hypothesis. The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith wrote the entire book. If Joseph Smith has the ability to rewrite Spaulding and make the story his own, then obviously the Spaulding theory is no longer needed to explain how the ignorant farm boy came up with the Book of Mormon.

Dan,

How do you jump to a conclusion that the Spalding theory become unnecessary given what Shades said? It is a lot easier to make changes here and there to a finished fictional work, than it is to create such an entire piece of work from nothing but imagination.

You say.."the simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith wrote the entire book". Sure that is the simplest explanation as long as you dismiss all the Spalding witnesses who by the way were not anti Mormon, they had no particular interest in Mormonism one way or another. Even Spalding’s wife didn’t guard her husband’s work from being taken by Hurlbut. So the evidence is not that they conspired against Mormons. I believe all the witnesses stated that what Hurlbut gave Howe was not the manuscript they were aware of contained in the Book of Mormon. If you find any of the Spalding witnesses not credible, what's your reasoning?

If Joseph Smith could write parts of the Book of Mormon on his own, why would he need Rigdon in the first place? Shades is under the impression that Joseph Smith dictated the parts about himself, which are few, but perhaps we need to discuss in more detail just how extensive the Smithisms are. Elsewhere Joseph Smith demonstrates that he can dictate "scripture" out of his hat without Rigdon's input. This evidence makes the Spalding theory unnecessary, because it explains nothing.

I do dismiss the Spalding witnesses as likely victims of false memory syndrom. That's because I believe the actual MS when discovered contradicted their memories. I don't believe faulty memories should be defended by inventing a second MS. Rather, I believe the reverse is true. The MS should be used to impeach the witnesses' memories as being faulty. As one spaulding witness discussed their memory of the MS they heard read 20 or more years earlier, the memory of the other witness was infected through the power of suggestion. This is a notorious problem with witnesses. Note that all Hurlbut's witnesses for the most part remembered only the first part of the Book of Mormon. And volunteered no additional or specific information about the Spalding MS. One said he could no longer remember anything specific except the names of Nephi and Lehi, while another claimed the Book of Mormon had borrowed passages verbatim from the Spalding MS. This situation hardly lends credibility to their testimonies.

[Bedlamite]

I do dismiss the Spalding witnesses as likely victims of false memory syndrom. That's because I believe the
actual MS when discovered contradicted their memories....

Memory Substitution in the "Spaulding Lie"

This explanation for the recollections of the "Conneaut Witnesses" regarding their late
neighbor/associate/relative, was first offered as an "apprehension" by the man responsible
for having the Spalding "Roman story" tranferred to Oberlin College. He said this:

"As the case now stands one must still doubt whether the Book of Mormon had its origin
in a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding. One who has had experience of the uncertainty of
memory after the lapse of twenty years especially in connection with fresh occurrences
which suggest resemblances and supply particulars, cannot escape the apprehension that
many of the definite recollections of Spaulding's neighbors may have risen from the Book
of Mormon itself."
Oberlin College President James H. Fairchild, Jan. 1886
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/1886Fair.htm#p172a

Here it is evident that Fairchild was speaking only of the content of the eight statements
published in Mr. Howe's 1834 book, and so he specifically mentions "twenty years" time lapse.
Over the years Mormon loyalists have seized upon Fairchild's speculation and, by repetitive
citations of him as a trustworthy authority on the Book of Mormon, have expanded that original
speculation into something like a solid law of the Universe, applicable to all witnesses who
testified to having personal knowledge of Mr. Spalding's writings. Hear Fawn Brodie:

"Hurlbut showed this manuscript [the Oberlin Roman story] to Spaulding's neighbors, who,
he said, recognized it as Spaulding's, but stated that it was not the "Manuscript Found."
Spaulding "had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates and writing
in the Old Scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient." This surmise may have
been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that
these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that
they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution
which they did not themselves recognize."
Fawn M. Brodie, "No Man Knows My History," pp. 424-425, first edition
http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Brd1945b.htm#pg424a

Thus, while Brodie concedes the bare possibility that Spalding might have written another
fictional story "in the Old Scriptural style," she immediately discards this explanation of
things, by saying that there are no signed statements providing any evidence of that allegation.

There are, in fact, at least four such statements, two of which were signed. I will provide excerpts:

1. "Mr. Spaulding being an educated man and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest
in these developments of [Ohio mound-builder] antiquity; and in order to beguile the hours of
retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of giving an
historical sketch of this long lost race. Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write
in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he
imitated its style as nearly as possible."
Matilda Spalding Davison's statement, in the "Boston Recorder" of April 19, 1839
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE ... htm#041939

2. "Silas Engles at the time a foreman printer... informed R. P. [i.e. Robert Patterson, Sr.]
that a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his hands a manuscript of a singular
work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible, and handed the copy to
R. P., who read only a few pages, and finding nothing apparently exceptionable, he (R. P.) said
to Engles, he might publish it... Mr. Engles returned the manuscript, as I supposed..."
Robert Patterson, partner in Patterson & Hopkins, Patterson & Patterson, and Patterson & Lambdin
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1842Wilm.htm#pg16b

3. "I have examined the writings which he [D. P. Hurlbut] has obtained from [said] Spaldings widowe
I recognise them [i.e. pages of the Roman story] to be the writings hand writing of [said] Spalding
but not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he
wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced
writing a history of the first Settlement of America..."
Aron Wright draft letter of Dec. 31, 1833 -- original in NYPL
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/As ... m#1833text

4. "Mr. Spalding wrote a drama called 'the Book of Mormon,' in a hotel at Conneaut, Ashtabula
county, O., where I had been teaching school. I was known through the country as a god grammarian
and possessing an accurate knowledge of the English language.... He said he wanted to make some
money, and wrote the drama, which he handed me for correction. It was full of Bible expressions,
and as I had read the Bible from lid to lid I knew the proper phraseology to use. I corrected
the grammar, and had to reconstruct and transpose entries to make good English out of it."
William H. Leffingwell statement to the "Missouri Republican" published May 29, 1885
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO ... htm#052985

Supplementary evidence, in the form of statements and reports regarding other Spalding fictional
writings, not identifiable as his Roman story, can be cited to the number of half a dozen or so.
One typical example from the Conneaut area is this one, published in 1873:

"Not long after the appearance of the Book of Mormon, Dr. Daniel M. Spencer, a resident of Kingsville,
in a conversation of our hearing, and at our father's house, in this town, said that he was well
acquainted with Spalding when he lived in Conneaut; had been at his house often and had read manuscripts
written by Spalding; that the matter contained in said manuscripts was touching the lost tribes of
Israel, their wanderings and final settlement on this continent..."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#030873

I have elsewhere begun to compile a list of all people who saw, heard read, or were informed of
Solomon Spalding's "Biblical" and "Lost Tribes" manuscript(s), but will delay discussing that material:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRP13p1.htm

Getting back to the idea of "memory substitution;" by what standard can we determine that the old
Spalding associates in the Conneaut area (as well as others in Pennsylvania, etc.) were substituting
false information for deleted facts in their published recollections?

I suggest that one way to help determine evidence for this sort of "apprehension" (as Fairchild
called the notion) or for this sort of likelihood (as Fawn Brodie argued), would be to examine those
published statements and locate any demonstrated instances where they substituted fancy for facts.
Having done just that, I can find no such examples. These appear to be people who were telling the
truth about all of their several recollections regarding where they lived, what they had been doing
20 years previously, who Solomon Spalding was, what Spalding was doing, etc. Since I can find no such
examples of memory substitution in their published statements, I next look for instances in which
Mormon reporters investigated these people and their claims, to prove them wrong. Again, I can find
no such reports -- even though Orson Hyde said that he went to the Conneaut area at an early date
and conducted such interviews. If the Mormons themselves cannot impeach the witnesses on a single
historical fact, I am inclined to trust the witnesses as being generally reliable.

Again, if we postulate "memory substitution" for each and every instance of early witnesses reporting
Spalding "biblical style" writings, or "lost tribes" writings, or "Book of Mormon type" writings, we
are compelled to make absurd changes, such as these:

1. In the widow's 1839 statement, replace "Old Testament" with "classical," etc.

2. In Patterson's 1842 statement, replace English translation of the "Bible" with "Ossian," etc.

3. In Wright's 1833 statement, replace "not the manuscript" with "is the manuscript," etc.

4. In Leffingwell's 1884 statement, replace "read the Bible" with "read Roman histories," etc.


I have no doubt that Mormon apologists and polemicsts would wholeheartedly approve our making all of
the required changes, to remove the "memory substitution" in over 20 such documents. Should we?

Fairchild's argument was that the Conneaut witnesses had not seen Spalding's writings for 20 years,
and thus could not be expected to recall the details in those stories. But then again, Fairchild
was not present on those occasions when Spalding would gather around him a small audience and recite
the continuing saga of the ancient records he was pretending to be "translating" -- records which
explained for his Conneaut neighbors the mysterious earthworks and artifacts of a lost civilization
which were turning up in their own back yards. In presenting his series of oral recitations Spalding
would have had numerous occasions to summarize and repeat that part of the story already previously
related by him (for the benefit of auditors not present at earlier readings), much like the old
movie serials recapped the "story up until now" in each episode.

The encounters that the people at Conneaut (and later at Amity) had with Spalding's stories were not
limited to casual browsings through his manuscripts, but were also a local entertainment phenomenon,
the unique effects of which no doubt lingered in their minds for many years.

But let us look at an example of an eyewitness who had only the opportunity to browse through one of
Spalding's writings, during a short visit to Spalding's home at Conneaut. Look for memory substitution:


"This story suggested the idea of writing a novel merely for amusement. The title of his novel, I think,
was "Historical Novel," or "Manuscript Found." This novel is the history contained in the manuscript
found. The author of it he brings from the Old World, but from what nation I do not recollect; I think
not a Jew; nor do I recollect how long since, but I think before the Christian Era. He was a man of
superior learning suited to that day. He went to sea, lost his point of compass, and finally landed
on the American shore; I think near the mouth of the Mississippi River. There he reflects most feelingly
on what he suffered, his present condition and future prospects; he likewise makes some lengthy remarks
on astronomy and philosophy, which I should think would agree in sentiment and style with very ancient
writings. He then started and traveled a great distance through a wilderness country inhabited by
savages, until he came to a country where the inhabitants were civilized, cultivated their land, and
had a regular form of government, which was at war with the savages."
Josiah Spalding letter of Jan. 6 1855
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs1/18 ... htm#pg254b

Now then, if we suppose that people exposed to Spalding's writings 20 years before would have great
lapses in their memory, what might we suppose in the case of a person who had not seen any of those
recollected writings for more than 40 years? Would we not think his recollections would be only half as
good as those of the people who were 20 years "closer" in time to the events of 1807-12, in Conneaut?
And yet, I find Josiah's memory of one Solomon Spalding story to be rather good.

Of course Mormon apologists and polemicists do not stop with their citing of Fairchild's memory substitution
"apprehension," as an argument against these old recollections. They also are able to explain how it is
that various and sundry people, reporting independently from different places and at different times, are
able to contribute to a fabric of untruth which makes up the "Spaulding lie."

Hear Parley P. Pratt:

"Now I testify, that the forgers of the Spaulding lie, (concerning S. Rigdon and others,) are of the
same description as those who forged the lie against the disciples of old -- accusing them of stealing
the body of Jesus, &c. And those who love this lie, are no better."
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg42a

Or, at an even higher level in the LDS hierarchy, hear President Joseph F. Smith:

"In another paper, I will present a few comments on these cunningly devised, and seemingly explicit
statements, and briefly review some of the unscrupulous falsehoods in the testimony of these and other
witnesses who conspired to deceive the world, and to destroy the Book of Mormon."
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/1900Smth.htm#pg383

"The long concealment of this silly "Manuscript Story" [i.e. the Roman story] seems to have been designed
by Providence for the express purpose of emphasizing this point; and for the further purpose of permitting
the more perfect development of the deep-laid schemes of wicked men, inspired by the great enemy of
all truth, in their vain attempts to overthrow the work of God and if possible to destroy it; and at last,
to reveal to the world the true character of those who have engaged in the despicable undertaking of
deceiving mankind, together with their slanderous and villainous methods of compassing their pernicious
ends. There are other statements of other persons, but all are of the same purport and almost the same
language. If one of these statements could be proven true, then all would be so proven. On the contrary,
if one were shown to be false, then all must fall, for they all testify, almost word for word, to the same
alleged facts. Nothing further should be necessary to prove the falsity of the affidavits than to refer
the reader to the published "Manuscript Found," but as many may not have access to the "Story," it will
be in order to point out a few inaccuracies, misstatements, errors and downright falsehoods contained in
the foregoing affidavits."
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/1900Smth.htm#pg451

The general explanation implied by this "Living Prophet" of the LDS Church, is that Satan has inspired a
vast program, spanning time and space, by which alleged witnesses provide independent testimony and
(largely unaware of each other's activities and their effects) thus "attempt to overthrow the work of God
and if possible to destroy it." Perhaps President Smith would include modern proponents like Art Vanick
and the publication editors of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in his list of "wicked men, inspired by
the great enemy of all truth." At least Smith's explanation of things provides one possible basis for the
diverse and seemingly un-connected testimony of many old witnesses and writers. Is it the real basis?

If Joseph F. Smith is correct, then perhaps his revelation of this evil "Spaulding lie" should be added
to the LDS D&C, where it can forever stand as the definitive, inspired, and prophetic answer to any
lingering questions as to how so many people were afflicated with "memory substitution"

Dale

[_marg]

Dan

(1)If Joseph Smith could write parts of the Book of Mormon on his own, why would he need Rigdon in the first place? (2) Shades is under the impression that Joseph Smith dictated the parts about himself, which are few, but perhaps we need to discuss in more detail just how extensive the Smithisms are. (3)Elsewhere Joseph Smith demonstrates that he can dictate "scripture" out of his hat without Rigdon's input. (4)This evidence makes the Spalding theory unnecessary, because it explains nothing.

To your first sentence, this issue is not a matter of it being an impossibility for Smith to have written the Book of Mormon though given what witnesses such as Emma have stated, at the time he didn’t have the capability but rather it is a function of what is most probable to have happened given an evaluation of all the evidence. If J.S. interjected some small portions of his own ideas into the Book of Mormon there is no reason to assume he did even that entirely on his own. He did have Cowdery there to help him. Cowdery being educated. But you are jumping from Shade’s suggestion J Smith might have interjected portions to that proving he could have written the entire Book of Mormon himself. There is a major difference in creativity and writing ability needed between interjecting small portions into a finished manuscript versus writing the whole of it by dictation without any notes, or a plan to follow.

If you read Tom Donofrio’s argument at http://www.mormonstudies.com/early1.htm, he makes a compelling case that the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon plagerized from other sources, one being from History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution, published in 1805 by Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814). Strings of words and similar concepts in the Book of Mormon seem to be taken directly from there. Interestingly the manuscript available of Spaldings of a story of I believe Roman going to America at the time of Constantine a similar theme to the Book of Mormon also appears to plagerize from O. Warren’s work. Now of course it could be argued that Smith could have plagerized as well. However Smith was not noted for reading anything other than the Bible, where Spalding was educated in the classics and well read. Rigdon for that matter was also educated and well read. But not Smith. Smith never demonstrated interest in writing either. This whole endeavour of him writing a lengthy story is out of the blue. Spalding on the other hand had many many witnesses testifying to his interest in writing stories, in particular stories historical which explained the local Indian burial mounds as well as the history of the Indians.

So one can easily imagine Smith with a copy of a finished manuscript being quite able while discussing what to add with Cowdery of interjecting additional bits and pieces. Now before you object and tell me but Cowdery, Emma, and Harris and others like the Whitmers said he didn’t use a manuscript, I have to say these witnesses lack objectivity. Did any of them not become involved with the Mormon sect? It seems to me that every single one of them who made claims to observing Smith for extended lengths of time t became part of the hierarchy. And if you look at Mormonism as a business, a means to earn a living…they all had vested interests in promoting this Book of Mormon as sacred, in promoting a storyline to support this. If any had admitted to a manuscript being used, their story of divine involvement would shatter.


To your second sentence discussing Smithisms, I leave that to those more knowledgable. It is one area I don’t involve myself. I’m sure it’s extremely important and I should spend some time on it, if I want to argue this thoroughly, but I haven’t. Craig makes an argument on his published web site which is in support of Rigdon’s beliefs changing from a point in time and those changes being injected into the Book of Mormon. You did have an opportunity of RFM to discuss with him which you replied that you defer to others more knowledgable. In this area for now I have to say I defer to Craig. Having read arguments on message boards involving Craig I know he’s extremely knowledable on Mormonism, the Book of Mormon contents and religious matters.

To your 3rd sentence ..that Smith “demonstrates that he can dictate "scripture" out of his hat without Rigdon's input”..are you serious? Are you referring to his tavern trick which he performed with Cowdery? What scripture did he dictate? How many pages? Were these straight out of the Bible? What do you mean by scripture? How on earth does this even relate to verifying that he dictated the entire Book of Mormon with his head in a hat?

To your 4th sentence.. (4)This evidence makes the Spalding theory unnecessary, because it explains nothing.


I’m not sure I understand your comment. What is being discussed is what might have really happened. This isn’t a scientific theory explaining observations and the explanation which is simplest but still explains those observations is the best theory to use. It really irrelevant how complex and cumbersome the explanations for how the Book of Mormon came about are. If in reality the events were complex and cumbersome..but those events occurred it would be an assault on history to ignore the events just because a simpler explanation is feasible. What is important is what is the most likely scenario given an examination of all the data. You conveniently accept the Book of Mormon witnesses who have a major vested interest in the business as they all become partners in it…yet you dismiss Spaldings witnesseses who have nothing to gain by their statements. Rather odd evalution of witnesses you have going on there Dan.

Dan

(1) I do dismiss the Spalding witnesses as likely victims of false memory syndrom. That's because I believe the actual MS when discovered contradicted their memories. I don't believe faulty memories should be defended by inventing a second MS. Rather, I believe the reverse is true. The MS should be used to impeach the witnesses' memories as being faulty. As one spaulding witness discussed their memory of the MS they heard read 20 or more years earlier, the memory of the other witness was infected through the power of suggestion. (2)This is a notorious problem with witnesses. Note that all Hurlbut's witnesses for the most part remembered only the first part of the Book of Mormon. And volunteered no additional or specific information about the Spalding MS. One said he could no longer remember anything specific except the names of Nephi and Lehi, while another claimed the Book of Mormon had borrowed passages verbatim from the Spalding MS. This situation hardly lends credibility to their testimonies.

When Spalding finished his manuscript witnesses were aware he’d taken it to the publishers. It was a finished manuscript, which the publishers wanted a few changes, and a preface. The manuscript currently available at the Oberlin library is a work in progress, not ready to take to any publisher, not even a finished story. The witnesses were aware that Spalding worked on other manuscripts, he was a writer but the one in question was finished. That negates you faulty memory entirely. How is it even possible that the manuscript in existence is a work in progress and witnesses were aware such a manuscript existed but that the one they were referring to was finished. by the way, one of the witnesses said Spalding told him the story involved people landing on the straits of Darien (Panama) this before the Church theorizing this and yet isn’t that what you say you could make a good argument for.

I’ve attempted to read the Book of Mormon Dan, I’ve even had it explained to me what it is about, I’ve gone to a website which gave details of how it all fits together, but I couldn’t for the life of me relate to you much about it, other than some names like Lehi, Nephi, came to pass, Moroni, Lamanites, Laban, fighting, destruction of nephites. The Book of Mormon is not a book if you have not studied it, to be detailed about. It is understandable that only key items remain in memory after a long period of time. But aside from that Hurlbut didn’t do a good job of getting the witness statements. He probably should have said they needed to be more detailed. But keep in mind these witnesses were not eager to help him. He may have been lucky to get what he got. Have you ever tried to get people to be a witness for you when there is no reward for them to do so. I have, in small claims court and witnesses do not like to be bothered unless they are going to benefit or they perceive some important reason for doing so. These witnesses really didn’t care about Hurlbut and his quest, they didn’t care about Mormonism. It made little difference to them. They didn’t put much effort into their statements. Hurlbut may well have shown them other statements, to encourage and show that others were willing to testify but also to show the way it’s done. But the witnesses are independent from one another, they were respected in their communities, and consistent in one detail being that Spalding often read his stories to others in his company. The witness statements for spalding are many but they aren’t all of them as the ones Howe didn’t publish given to him by Hurlbut ended up being destroyed in a building fire.

I’m writing this atm, without referring to the witness statements. I might later add further comment.

[Bedlamite]

Pratt Keeps Spalding Secret?

So, in response to Parley P. Pratt's accounts of how he learned about the Book of Mormon, you accuse him of lying and/or
being Rigdon's dupe? On what evidence?

You misunderstand my position entirely. I am more than willing to give Pratt the benefit of the doubt, when it
comes to his supposed honesty, 99% of the time. As you say, I cannot accuse him of lying or of withholding the
truth, unless I have better evidence for doing so. Probably somebody needs to write some articles, or even a book
on the subject of Pratt's early years, his reputation for honesty, as well as covering the whole subject of
secrecy among the top Mormon leaders. As I said before, you come out of a Latter Day Saint tradition where folks
sustain and believe their leaders almost without question; and I come out of a tradition where they do not --
and where they especially do not, in the case of the "gang of nine" Brighamites who went west.

Asking a Reorganized Saint to accept Parley P. Pratt on his word alone, is about as useless a request as
your asking him to accept John C. Bennett or George M. Hinkle on their word alone.

I am not sure just how much "evidence" you expect me to produce before I have sufficient cause to present an
alternative hypothesis for Rigdon's and Pratt's 1829-30 activities. I am in no way arguing that you yourself must
believe such things -- nor even that a reader of this thread who has not yet made up his/her mind on such matters
is compelled to accept my suggestions. I present them as just that -- suggestions -- and suggestions which I truly
believe, in their aggregate, deserve some closer study by somebody. I always welcome being disabused of any
wrong-headed ideas I am considering -- so I say, bring on your evidence for my being compelled to believe Pratt.

All you offer us is little more than unsupported assertion that begs the question because it assumes Pratt
knew the "truth".

Well, this is not a thread about Parley P. Pratt, and it was not I who intruduced his name into the discussion. But
I did attempt to provide my thoughts on the man and his activities. I never said that he "Keeps Spalding Secret;"
and for all I know Pratt may have sincerely believed that Rigdon had no connection whatever with Mr. Spalding. What
I am saying is that I do not know -- and I am saying that the matter is worthy of investigation.

What I hear you saying, is that any secretive involvment on Pratt's part, in Rigdon's pre-1831 activities, is NOT
worthy of any further investigation. That is your choice. You have every right in the world to convince yourself of
that conclusion. Whether you will be able to convince the various readers of this thread not to waste their time in
looking more closely at Pratt, I do not know. Perhaps Wade Englund and others will offer their support on your behalf.

Apparently, the only reason you suggest Pratt lied about the circumstances of Rigdon's conversion to Mormonism
as well as his own is because your thesis demands it. Arguing that early Mormon leaders kept polygamy secret
and therefore kept Spalding secret as well is not evidence. It's wishful thinking. You must give us reason for
believing Pratt lied in this specific case. If you can't impeach Pratt's testimony, your theory that Rigdon was
involved with Smith before December 1830 is in trouble.

Then again, I am not arguing a legal case before a judge and a jury -- nor even presenting a finished chapter in a
book for publication. I am, instead, laying out a research agenda. I am saying to others, "Here is something you
should look at carefully; it is worthy of your skeptical attention; if you dig around, you may find confirmation.
I am not convinced that I must "impeach Pratt's testimony," in order to doubt it, nor to look and see what might
logically be the results of his having not told the entire truth.

The observation that secrecy pervaded early Mormon leadership circles is not a conclusion of my manufacture. And we
are talking about more than just secrets regarding polygamy in this case. Many things were kept secret, or denied.
The anointed quorum was kept secret; Smith's being crowned King was kept secret; counterfeiting at Nauvoo was kept
secret; Mormon plans for uniting the western Indians as an allied armed force were kept secret; Mormon endowment
particulars were kept secret; the misdeeds of the Nauvoo mayor, John C. Bennett, were for a period kept secret; the
exact level of involvement of Mormons in the attempted assassination of Grandison Newell was kept secret; the
circulation of unredeemable Kirtland banknotes at a distance from Geauga County was kept secret; the insolvency of
the Mormon bank at Monroe was kept secret -- and I am willing to bet that readers of this thread can add a dozen
more serious instances in which the topmost leadership of the Church kept members and Gentiles alike misinformed as
to their real activities in regard to the Church, behind closed doors.

Given this very real history of high level secrecy in the topmost ranks of the Church, I do not understand why it
cannot be kept in mind as we consider the case of allegations against Sidney Rigdon, for having conducted secret
manipulations of people and events in church history. Do we even know for certain what his role was in the
factionalization and break-up of Baptist congregations he oversaw in Pittsburgh, Bainbridge, Hiram, Mentor and
elsewhere? All the evidence I have seen points to him as a secretive religious manipulator who was in the process
of winning certain key figures of congregations over to his "side" of a controversy, so that those congregations
might be split up and part of the people carried over into the Reformed Baptist cause. At least the Campbellites
saw him in that role.

You can give us no reason to doubt Pratt's account of his motivations and movements in 1830. Your assertion that
he was Rigdon's dupe, later discovered he was used to aid in Rigdon's fake conversion, and then kept the secret
because he was placed under an oath is quite far fetched and highly improbable. When Pratt left, he sold his farm
and had no plans of returning. Even if Rigdon thought it was inevitable that Pratt discover the Book of Mormon, how confident
could he be that Pratt would accept it, be baptized, and want to return to the Mentor area on the way to Missouri?

Again you confuse my personal views and provisional opinions with the sort of assertion that a prosecutor brings
against a criminal charged in a court case. I am not doing that at all. I am presenting an alternative to Pratt's
story and to Rigdon's story, which I say is a predictive hypothesis -- that is, a working viewpoint for investigators
of the history, which should provide additional confirming evidence, if it is followed and given the same weight of
possibility as are the old Mormon claims.

I do not say that Rigdon's was a "fake conversion," but merely that its timing was a staged show. This is precisely
what some of the first RLDS preaching elders did here on the Big Island where I live, and it is a well known fact
among the two CoC congregations here, that one elder would pretend to be a convert, be baptized, and then give a
testimony saying other Hawaiians ought to also become converts. The conversion itself was not "fake," but its public
presentation was untruthful.

It may be "improbable" that Pratt knew Rigdon would accept a Mormon baptism in advance -- but many things in life
are improbable. They still occur. If Rigdon and Pratt were seeing visions, receiving revelations, and believing that
the second coming of Christ was only months away, they may not have felt gulity of any crime, in keeping a few details
hidden from the public. Isn't this the same sort of thing you postulate in the case of Joseph's and Oliver's baptism?
That is, that although no real angel or translated John the Baptist appeared to them, that they both told the story
in such a way as to have a maximum effect upon potential converts (and to shore up the faith of the converted)?

Why didn't Joseph Smith just get a revelation directing the missionaries to pass through Mentor? Or, better, direct Cowdery to
pretend to convert Rigdon since, according to your theory, Cowdery was already part of the conspiracy?

You seem to think of a "conspiracy" in terms of either 100% or nothing. For a couple of years I worked with a high
level security clearance in nuclear facilities design. I did not know half of what the guys sitting in the same room
as me were doing, much less what our boss was up to, in his meetings behind closed doors. At one point there was a
radiation leak and we were evacuated, and given strict orders not to tell what had happened, nor what we had seen
when conducted off the property through a top-level secured area. How much did I really know? How much did I ask?
How long did I keep the relatively minor secret of what I saw when passing through a spent fuel rods processing area?
I loved my country -- felt what what we were doing was right, even if secret -- even if the newspapers did not get
the true story -- and I simply did not question beyond that point. Was I "already part of the conspiracy?"

I ask readers of this thread to hold open the possibility that all through Mormon history, that there were secrets
demanded and secrets kept, both large and small, and by people who thought that if they betrayed even a very small
misdeed, that they were putting "the Lord's anointed" and "the latter day work" in grave danger -- that mobs stood
right outside their cabins, ready to crush all that they held holy, if given even the slightest justification.

Why did Smith not hand out a "revelation" directing Parley and Oliver to go and convert the Reformed Baptists of
Geauga Co., Ohio? Perhaps the answer is that any such predictive prophecy would have been too much for even
the most deluded Mormon convert to swallow.

Who can doubt that pious fraud in general exists, but you are attempting to go from the general to the particular
without any real evidence for doing so. You can't just accuse Pratt of dishonesty because you need to maintain
your pet theory. You must build a compelling case showing Pratt did lie. Otherwise, his testimony stands as strong
evidence against your theory.

Then perhaps you are helping me do that right now, as we speak, with some "negative testing." What will you do if I
end up dropping a few of my weakest notions, at your urging, and then wind up with an even stronger case for a
slightly re-stated Spalding-Rigdon-Smith authorship thesis? I truly do not know if you are open to that possibility
at all -- or whether you are implictly advising readers of this thread to give up on these possibilities before they
even have a decent opportunity to ponder and investigate them ????

It would be helpful if you told us what to look for in this book of Pratt's that you think helps your argument
here. It is quite unnecessary to refer to vague references in this source, since Pratt is open about his association
with Rigdonism. In his autobiography, Pratt said he was "astonished" by Rigdon's doctrine, but believed it was
incomplete because none of the Rigdonites actually manifested spiritual gifts.

How can you say that, when there is testimony stating that Rigdon himself was already subject to visions and other
pentecostal phenomena? Rigdon may not have been promoting that sort of thing among each and every one of his
followers in 1829-30, but your saying that he himself did not "manifest spiritual gifts" seems very peculiar to me.

So, the Rigdonites differed from Campbellites on the matter of spiritual gifts being restored -- Campbell believed
the gifts as well as the apostleship were confined to the first century and were no longer necessary. In essence,
the Rigdonites were Seekers -- much like Joseph Smith's uncle Jason Mack and father -- who awaited the restoration of the
apostleship through either a Pentecostal event or angelic ministration. by the way, in my book Religious Seekers and the
Advent of Mormonism, I traced the history of Seekerism and suggested that Mormonism began by fulfilling Pentecostal
Seeker expectations, but shifted to claims of angelic ordination.

No doubt many Rigdonites were seekers of one sort or another -- but since nearly all of them came out of the Regular
Baptist Church into "the Reform," they had some predictable points in common. I do not think you can compare them to
other religious groups (or individuals) of that period, without carefully stating the limitations of your assertions.
One common point they shared with their Campbellite brethren was the perceived need for scriptures to provide the
teachings and patterns for the pre-Millennial Church. Campbell had already shown the power of new scriptures in his
publication of a New Testament with wording differing from the KJV. Only by his pointing to that, and other parts,
of scripture could he bring about doctrinal changes among the Reformed Baptists. The group was also close communion,
semi-Arminian, etc. in ways that "seekers" as a group may not have identified with. Yes, there is some overlap, but
I have never seen it well illustrated and I would caution against closing off your mind to some different possibilities.

All of which primed them for Joseph Smith's claims, as also many others throughout the world. however, the more likely target
of Joseph Smith's fulfillment of Seeker expectations was his father. It was fortunate that Joseph Smith found this pocket of Seekers in
northern Ohio.

no comment

[Rigdonism was the religion to which Pratt his loyality in 1830] This may very well be true, although Pratt
emphasized his being called by the spirit to sell all he had and start on a mission.

If what you say is true, why would Rigdon divulge the secret himself? It seems a little wild to speculate as you do
on so little evidence. It's a huge leap that I can't take with you. However, the above quote saying Pratt "was sent"
is not from Rigdon, but rather from Joseph Smith's History of the Church (1:121) first printed in Times
and Seasons 4:289. So, I'm not sure of the authority of the "was sent" and prefer Pratt's version, that is, that he
was called by the spirit and was heading for Canaan to visit family and friends, when promted by the spirit to visit
a small town near Rochester, NY.

Why did Rigdon ever do anything? You tell me and we will both know. Why was he allowed to get so carried away with
his spring 1844 Conference discourse, with Joseph Smith right there on the podium with him? Why were 2/3rds of his address
suppressed and never published in the Church papers? Rigdon might have been well advised to have toned down his
anti-Missourian rhetoric on July 4, 1838 -- he might have been well advised to have exercised greater caution in
telling the Saints at Kirtland that the keys to the kingdom had been taken from them -- he might have been well
advised to have obscured his own history just a little better when the 1843 Times & Seasons account was published.
If Rigdon did not exactly set the type of that episode of "Joseph Smith's History," then he at least supplied those
parts which only he could have known about. I would advise a closer look at all of this. I recall reading in some
early Mormon lady's memoirs that Rigdon had been "sent" to NY in 1830, but upon searching for the quote I see it
was not from Violate Kimball, Katherine Smith, nor Emily Austin --- I'll find it eventually.

If what you are saying is true, why wouldn't Rigdon "implant" in Pratt's mind to go to Manchester or Fayette?
Why would Rigdon want Pratt to go to a little town near Rochester to learn about the Book of Mormon from an unbeliever?
Pratt wasn't looking for the Gold Bible, he was looking to preach. The Book of Mormon was a total surprise.

Again your conclusions bewilder me, Dan. I can understand your saying "I think the Book of Mormon was a total surprise." I can
even understand your saying, "I am totally convinced that the Book of Mormon was a total surprise." But when you make such an
assertion, with the same conviction as your saying "2+2=4" that scares me. It really does!

Remainder to come in a separate posting, in a few days.

Dale